How to write a linguistics essay

This week I'm busy marking first-year essays which asked the students to discuss the context and purpose of a set text with reference to the linguistic and graphic features of the text in 500 words (just a short one as a diagnostic assessment early in the semester). I have about 100 of them to mark in total and as usual I'm finding myself writing the same kind of feedback on most of them.

This genre of essay is often a tricky one for first-year students to figure out, because they don't have to do any extra reading and they haven't learnt much in the way of tools or technical terms by the end of week 3 when the assignment is due. It requires working out what they think the context and purpose of the text is and then making an argument based on the decision they make. It also involves working out what features of the text can be pointed to as evidence for their judgement about its context and purpose. On top of that, they need to be able to organise their ideas into a coherent essay using appropriate academic expression.

There are a few recurrent issues that I keep having to address in my feedback, and so I thought I'd make a list of tips responding to them. Perhaps future linguistics students might be able to benefit from this - essay-writing advice is usually too general to be able to help work out what an analytical linguistics essay requires.

• Work out what your answer to the question is in general terms. This will form the basis of your introduction and help you make a plan for the rest of your essay. For example, if the text is a book review and you think the context and purpose of the text is to summarise and evaluate the book and recommend it to readers from the academic community in the discipline of Russian history, your introduction might say something like "The book review of [book name] by [reviewer] is written with the purpose of providing a summary and evaluation of the book's contents and recommending the book to readers, in particular Russian history scholars." In one sentence, you have introduced the text and answered the question about the purpose of the text as well as its intended audience.
• Identify the features of the text that help you understand that the purpose of the text is to summarise, evaluate and recommend the book and that the intended readers are Russian history scholars. For example, there might be a paragraph of the text giving a chapter-by-chapter outline of the book; there might be lots of summarising, comparing & contrasting or evaluative language; and there might be lots of positive evaluations of the book, especially at the end of the text. Pick out one or two brief phrases from each of these features that would support your claim most strongly.
• Summarise the features you have identified in a general way so that you can include a brief and general indication of them in your introduction. This will be a signal to your reader of the points that you will cover in your essay. For example, you could follow the introductory sentence in point 1 above with something like this: "These contextual features of the text are evident from the linguistic choices such as summarisation, comparison, and evaluation."
• Your essay should always move from the general to the specific. The introduction should give a general overview of your argument and the points you'll make (as demonstrated above) and therefore should not include any specific examples or evidence. Save that for the body of your essay where you argue each point. This principle also applies to each paragraph in the body of your text (see below).
• Write a topic sentence for each paragraph stating a general point about the context and purpose of the text. For the book review example, you might have three paragraphs: one about the summarising and evaluating function of the text, one about the recommending function of the text, and one about the target readers of the text (depending on the specifics of the question asked). Your topic sentences should be linked back to your introduction and should just be observations of the text, e.g. not 'The text contains lots of evaluative words...' but 'The text has a primary function of summarising and evaluating the book. This can be see through the use of a chapter-by-chapter outline in paragraph 2, e.g. 'In chapter 1, the author... In chapter 2'.' I'm using fairly basic expression here just to give an example of the unfolding of meanings required in each paragraph. Start with the general (the main point for that paragraph), and move towards the specific (the examples from the text).

The Language of God

I had some days off sick this week, which gave me the opportunity to do a bit of long-awaited leisure reading. So I started reading 'The Language of God' (2006, Free Press), which I found amongst the small collection of books my husband already owned before I moved in with my several extra bookshelves worth!

I was initially attracted by the title, as you can imagine - but it's not really about 'language' of the kind that I study. It's written by Dr Francis Collins, who is the head of the Human Genome Project, and the title is taken from US President Bill Clinton's speech at the official public launch of the findings of the Human Genome Project, the human DNA sequence, in 2000. Clinton said: "Today we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, and the wonder of God's most divine and sacred gift." (see full transcript here).

Collins' aim in the book is to dispel the notion that a rigorous science precludes serious belief in a transcendent God "by arguing that belief in God can be an entirely rational choice, and that the principles of faith are, in fact, complementary with the principles of science" (p.3). As part of this, he gives his own testimony as a scientist with a firm faith in God.

I haven't finished reading it yet (only up to chapter 3) but I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the first two chapters. In the first chapter, Collins shares the story of his interesting childhood, his growing thirst for scientific knowledge, his studies in chemistry and then medicine, and ultimately, sparked by the simple question of a dying woman, his discovery of a God who is there, and who takes a personal interest in human beings.

He also shares some of the trains of thought he went through during this time of discovery, inspired by the writings of C.S. Lewis, another academic who had taken a very similar path from atheism to faith. These included the perplexing fact that "the concept of right and wrong appears to be universal among all the members of the human species" and that "this law appears to apply peculiarly to human beings" (p.23). I was encouraged and excited to read his reflections on the differences between humans and animals on this point, as this is an issue that has been on my mind, as seen in last week's blog post. I was glad to find some support for my ideas from a more knowledgeable source. It's nice to know I might be thinking on the right track!

Humans and animals

I've been saying in other blog posts that humans are created in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27) and are communicative and relational. But we can also observe communication and relationship in some, if not all, animal species. The Genesis account makes it clear that animals are not created in God's image. So what is the difference between the kind of communication and relationships that humans and animals have? What is it about human communication and relationships that is special and particularly reflects our status as God's image-bearers?

I think it's love. When I think about what we see as relationships between animals, they are really utilitarian, rather than characterised by love. Animals enter into relationships with other animals mainly for procreation (only for very few is this an exclusive relationship) and for cooperation related to food sourcing etc. But the procreating kind of relationship is driven by hormones and instinct rather than love. While hormones and instincts are also involved in human relationships, humans are also able to override their hormones and instincts when necessary for the sake of another person. As far as I know, animals do not have the option of exercising self-control for the sake of another. As far as I know, they do not make choices which sacrifice their own desires for the sake of another, to put the other first. To do that would seem to go against the 'survival of the fittest' principle.

Humans' ability to have loving relationships that display conscious, deliberate self-sacrifice seems to me to be a direct reflection of God's relational character. God's deep love is supremely demonstrated in the way God the Father sent his only Son to die as a sacrifice for the sake of those he loved (see John 3:16 and 1 John 4:9-10), and the way God the Son willingly sacrificed himself for the glory and honour of his Father, because he loved his Father and wanted to obey him (see Luke 22:41-42).